Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR 134112
Ruvolo, P. J.
Appellant Levi Anthony Olmstead (appellant) appeals from a three-year state prison sentence he received (subject to local custody credits) following his no-contest plea to all criminal charges brought against him, including a prior prison allegation. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
A criminal information was filed by the Napa County District Attorney’s Office on April 13, 2007, charging appellant with one felony count of evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor counts of resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)) and driving while privileges suspended (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that appellant had suffered one prior conviction for which he served a term in state prison within the past five years, within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
All further dates are in the calendar year 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
After originally pleading not guilty, on August 9, appellant pleaded no contest to all charges and to the prior prison term allegation in the information. Appellant initialed and signed a plea form acknowledging that, as a result of his plea, it was agreed that he would be sentenced to no more than three years in state prison. In pleading no contest, appellant was advised of the rights he was waiving by virtue of his plea, and he voluntarily waived these rights. Sentencing was set for September 24.
A presentence probation report was filed recommending that probation be denied and that a state prison term be imposed for the felony conviction. County jail terms, to run concurrent with the state prison term, were recommended for each of the misdemeanor convictions. At sentencing, appellant’s counsel asked that a state prison term be imposed, but its execution be suspended and appellant placed on probation. Both appellant and his mother addressed the court during the sentencing hearing, and the court indicated that it had read and considered the probation report, in addition to considering the comments of the witnesses. The court then denied appellant probation, and sentenced him to the midterm of two years in state prison on count one, and imposed an additional year in state prison based on the prior prison allegation, for an aggregate term of three years. County jail terms were imposed for both misdemeanor counts, but the court ordered that these sentences be stayed, pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Appropriate credits for time served were awarded, and restitution fines totaling $400 were imposed. As to count three, a fine of $1,620 was also imposed.
Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. We discern no error in the sentencing. The sentencing choices made by the trial court were consistent with the no contest plea and applicable law, they were supported by substantial evidence, and were well within the discretion of the trial court. The restitution fines and penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Sepulveda, J. Rivera, J.